VC0-00696

VC0-00696

No breach of procedural fairness: appellants chose self-representation, were informed of rights and process, had an interpreter, raised no objection or postponement request, and were able to participate meaningfully. On the merits, the adult appellants failed to demonstrate more than a minimal possibility of personalized risk or a sufficient nexus to a Convention ground; the minor's claim amounted to discrimination and state protection in the US was available. Therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection (s.111(1)(a) IRPA).

Citation
VC0-00696
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Convention Refugee Status, Persons in Need of Protection, Section 97(1) Individualized Risk, Gender Related Persecution, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Convention Refugee Status Persons in Need of Protection Section 97(1) Individualized Risk Gender Related Persecution +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of counsel and proceeding without postponement breached procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether adult appellants face an individualized/personalized risk under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the Associate Appellant's allegations engage a Convention ground (gender) and whether risk is individualized

Ratio Decidendi

No breach of procedural fairness: appellants chose self-representation, were informed of rights and process, had an interpreter, raised no objection or postponement request, and were able to participate meaningfully. On the merits, the adult appellants failed to demonstrate more than a minimal possibility of personalized risk or a sufficient nexus to a Convention ground; the minor's claim amounted to discrimination and state protection in the US was available. Therefore the RAD confirms the RPD decision that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection (s.111(1)(a) IRPA).

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division decision dated March 26, 2020 that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.